Premier Jacinta Allan has left the door open to a High Court challenge before the state election by nominating a September 1 start date for the proposed laws tied to her work from home policy.
The government has also confirmed it will legislate work from home through changes to the state’s Equal Opportunity Act, as revealed this week by The Age.
In effect, this will make it illegal for any boss to discriminate against a worker who reasonably refuses to come to the office two days a week.
Earlier this week, the cabinet ruled out an exemption for small businesses and signed off on a plan to introduce legislation in July to give all employees a legal right to work remotely at least two days a week when feasible. If the legislation passes unamended, the laws will come into effect nearly three months before the November 28 election.
Labor’s time frame will force Opposition Leader Jess Wilson to take a clear position on whether the Coalition supports or opposes the government’s legislation just as she heads into the campaign. Wilson has so far been noncommittal about whether she supports a guaranteed right to work from home.
A government survey and a poll conducted for The Age by Resolve Political Monitor show the promise of legislated work from home rights is widely popular. But major business groups – a traditional constituent of the Liberal Party – see the proposed laws as an unnecessary and unwarranted regulatory burden.
The July time frame also offers an opportunity for people or organisations opposed to the laws to challenge their constitutional validity. No state government has attempted to legislate a right to work from home. Victoria gave up its powers to make industrial relations laws nearly 30 years ago.
When asked about the proposed laws on Tuesday, the premier said her government was ready for a High Court stoush.
“We have advice that it is constitutionally valid,” Allan said.
“But let’s be clear: what does it say about someone who wants to race off to the High Court to strip away a worker’s right to work from home? To strip away something that saves workers time, to strip away something saves workers money and to strip away something that is good for the economy.”
Allan’s final point is contested by some business representatives. Committee for Melbourne chief executive Scott Veenker said that although three-quarters of Victorian companies already had staff working from home, mandated arrangements would impose an additional regulatory burden on business owners.
“The reality is this is legislation that we don’t believe is warranted or needed,” Veenker said. “It is another reason to look at whether you consider having businesses operating in Melbourne and Victoria.”
The Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group and the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia are all opposed to the government’s plans.
The government has signalled its intention to prosecute the case for working from home laws as a matter of gender equality.
Treasurer Jaclyn Symes, who came to prominence as a young Labor adviser who took the Victorian parliament to task for failing to pay the maternity leave she had accrued, recounted her own difficulties in returning to work as evidence of why the laws were needed.
“Chocolate and Peppa Pig for my kids while I was working that fifth day but getting paid for four,” she said. “That is the story of working women for too long.”
The Liberal Party’s review of its disastrous 2025 federal election campaign found that then-opposition leader Peter Dutton’s pledge to end working from home arrangements for public servants alienated women voters.
The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.
Chip Le Grand leads our state politics reporting team. He previously served as the paper’s chief reporter and is a journalist of 30 years’ experience.Connect via email.
